VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

972 DECISION - 546
under sec. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is available
for the offence punishable under sec. 7 or sec. 11 or clause (a) or
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of sec. 13 and not for clause (d) of subsenction
(1) of sec. 13.
In this view of the matter, the Supreme Court partly allowed
the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High
Court confirming the order passed by the Special Judge convicting
the appellant for the offence punishable under sec. 13(1)(d)(i) and
acquitted the appellant for the same.
(546)
Disproportionate Assets — Sec. 13(1)(e) P.C. Act, 1988
materially different from sec. 5(1)(e) P.C. Act, 1947
Where the accused committed the offence when
P.C. Act, 1947 was in operation, he shall not be
deemed to have been charged under sec. 13(1)(e)
P.C. Act, 1988 as it is materially different from sec.
5(1)(e) P.C. Act, 1947.
Jagan M. Seshadri vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
2002 Cri.L.J. SC 2982
The Supreme Court observed that when the offence was
committed it was the P.C. Act, 1947 which was in operation. At the
time when FIR was lodged, it was also the 1947 Act which was in
operation. Reliance on sec. 30(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 to hold that
offence for which the appellant should have been charged was one
which fell under sec. 13 of the 1988 Act is wholly misplaced. The
framing of charge by the trial court under sec. 5(1)(e) read with sec.
5(2) of the 1947 Act for offence allegedly committed during check
period 1977-1984 is not invalid. The appellant shall not be ‘deemed’
to have been charged for offences under sec. 13(1)(e) read with
sec. 13(2) of the 1988 Act.
A bare reading of sec. 30(2) of the 1988 Act shows that any
act done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken
under or in pursuance of the repealed Act, shall, in so far as it is not